Has our financial mess brought us to the brink of getting beyond the culture wars?
It’s a question that we might see play out on Capitol Hill in the coming months as the new majority seeks to make the late pro-life congressman Henry Hyde proud, by defunding Planned Parenthood and prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion.
Advertisement
“Hell no,” Speaker John Boehner said when he was in the minority, to the conscience-offending comprehensive health-care legislation that congressional Democrats and the White House insisted on. Now that he’s speaker, the first big vote under his watch was to repeal the president’s signature piece of legislation.
What do you do after a repeal — a repeal that is stalled in the obstinate Harry Reid–run Senate? Move on to HR-3, to do something that the old leadership claimed it had done: keep taxpayer money out of the business of funding abortion. As Boehner said while introducing HR-3: “A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land. But current law — particularly as enforced by this administration — does not reflect the will of the people.” For anyone who still isn’t sure we were lied to, former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made things clear on the campaign trail recently — just in time for the repeal vote and the rollout of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”
Emanuel is now a candidate for mayor of Chicago. Pressed by a primary opponent, former senator Carol Moseley Braun, who accused him of throwing “women under the bus” — women who don’t oppose abortion, that is — Emanuel told a Chicago Tribune forum that he “came up with an idea for an executive order to allow the Stupak Amendment not to exist by law but by executive order, and it was good enough that Nancy Pelosi, Jan Schakowsky here in Chicago, Rosa DeLauro, Anna Eshoo — a number of women who are held — Nita Lowey — who are held up as honors by people like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who supported that bill and supported the way to make progress.” They were fine with it, of course, because there would be no real prohibition in the executive order.
Carol Moseley Braun got the truth out of Emanuel because he needs his base to win the campaign. But back on Capitol Hill, Boehner and other pro-life members have support that is much broader. We got a little hint of that in the enthusiasm among many freshman members for an effort to defund Planned Parenthood during this Congress.
“Ending taxpayer funding of abortion and getting Planned Parenthood’s hand out of the pocket of taxpayers are clearly crossover issues,” says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Social conservatives as well as fiscal conservatives can generally agree that the government has no business being in the business of funding or subsidizing abortion.” He adds a pat on the back for HR-3: “The new leadership is clearly up on their history. They know they have no room for equivocation — promise made must be promise kept, and that is what they doing.”
As I write, though, I can hear the critics, even among conservatives: There they go again — rosaries on my ovaries. Or, less crassly: Culture warriors on the march.
But you don’t have to agree with me in opposing legal abortion to see that HR-3 makes good common sense.
Since liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness are predominant themes in the tea party movement, it's a no-brainer that abortion should be a tea party issue. Beyond appealing to the conservatives who are interested only in the taxpayer angle, how about appealing to them as advocates for "abortion reform" much like all of us conservatives clamor for "tax reform"??
Certainly, taxes and streamlining government are tea party issues, but how about calling abortion for what it is and insisting upon reform within that ugh, "industry"? If you still aren't convinced of the need, or you just don't care about this issue, please go to restoreamerica.org today and read just one paragraph of today's letter.
Read, if you can. I couldn't finish the letter. I was weeping for the innocents, especially for those who were slaughtered AFTER failed abortions in the third trimester. They were breathing people, wiggling little infants. That's murder, period. But then, taking a baby's life just inches from daylight during an abortion, it's murder too, but not in the eyes of the court or with pro-abort allies.
If one looks at taxpayer funded abortion as strictly a fiscal issue, then one should look at the big picture and not remain tunnel visioned on Planned Parenthood subsidies. If a child is going to be born into the Welfare system, with years of monthly tax subsidized payments taking place, then the dreaded abortion is actually a more sound fiscal choice. Also, there are gobs of tax subsidized Federal Programs for both Pre-Kindergarteners and 6-11 year olds alike. They are not cheap. Finally, our prison system is filled with folks that came from Federally subsidized households. It's unfortunate, but kids raised in the ghetto on Welfare have a fairly high risk of becoming incarcerated felons. Once you start adding up court costs and prison fees, the amount that could have been spent on that abortion way back when doesn't seem so high.
"...In this sense, forced payment for abortions is not just or even primarily about abortion but about experts in Washington instructing us about how we make decisions about sensitive matters..."
I hope those determined to turn back Roe v. Wade remember these words.
When taxpayers have more of their own money, they can fund the organizations they want through their donations; government is not competent to make these determinations. This is one of the ways that high taxation takes away our freedom, and I agree that it is definitely a Tea Party issue.
Other then the military and border security, I can't get upset at cuts to anything. As long as I start to see it in lowered taxes in my pocket as soon as feasible.
As usual, spot on, Kathryn. As an Army wife, I'm all for cutting wasteful military spending. We are spending ridiculous amounts of money on weapons systems that military leaders have said FOR DECADES are not being used, wn't be used. Because the company holding those contracts is in Sen or Rep So and so's district or state, it keeps getting funded. EVERYTHING should be looked at.
In this instance, the moral argument goes hand-in-hand with the fiscal one. Funding abortion with tax dollars costs taxpayers money. Defunding abortion saves taxpayers the cost of providing abortion services and is entirely consistent with the pro-life position. The opposite angle noted in a previous post--that defunding abortion costs taxpayers money down the road--might save taxpayers money in the long run (assuming that the aborted babies are from lower socioeconomic groups and will not amount to anything more than burdens on society--a pretty big assumption, mind you), but is not at all consistent with the pro-life position.
So, as a pro-lifer, I don't think I would want to argue for abortion as good fiscal policy. And were I a pro-abortionist, I certainly don't think I'd want to argue for abortion as a means to ease the financial burden on society posed by the children of lower socioeconomic classes.
"assuming that the aborted babies are from lower socioeconomic groups and will not amount to anything more than burdens on society--a pretty big assumption, mind you"
Yes, I neglected to point out that my tax payer funding would be solely for Welfare recipients and end there. Federally subsidized babies and their inevitable rise to "teenhood" are inherently more costly in the long run than an abortion procedure.
"but is not at all consistent with the pro-life position"
I think that the article was intended for those who are pro-choice, but fiscally responsible. It was a sort of common ground essay since those who are pro-life needn't have another reason other than a moral one. That was my take, anyway.
Good article, and just plain common sense. Support of abortions and particularly of Planned Parenthood is unAmerican, has only selfish motives, and destroys the fiber of this country. Locally, Planned Parenthood is on the list of organizations helped by United Way - so I steadfastly refuse to contribute anything to UW as long as PP can even remotely profit. Non-profit ? Baloney ! ! ! TomSFO
The tea party has got to stay out of social issues or it won't be as influential as it currently is or have as many supporters. I would agree to cut support for PP as part of a larger package of cuts/defunding. However, there shouldn't be a bill specific to abortion or wording specific to abortion. Cut wasteful spending, not abortion funding. There are way too many tea party supporters who will be alienated when abortion rights are thrust into the picture.
sezme the two current bills on the issue are to make sure NO federal funds go to pay for abortions, including cutting off the funds to Planned Parenthood. Cutting off funding is right up the Tea Party alley.
I'm not going to tell you not to have an abortion, that is between you and your God but I certainly don't want to pay for it. Me supplying you money for the act is against me and my God.
Fiscal Conservatism without Social Conservatism is unbridled Nazi utilitarianism.
When it comes to killing people, pure Fiscal Conservatism can only reply "why not", and then add "better pull their gold teeth, and sell their skin for lampshades, to be fiscally responsible".
If the Tea Party is only about money, then America is doomed.
There is now insurmountable data from in-vitro fertilization clincs that once a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm the result of this fertilization, if not interfered with. is ALWAYS a Human Being and NOT A GIRAFE, ELEPHANT, OSTRICH OR A CHICKEN ETC. If you have contrtary data please post it here including the name of the Scientific Journal, volume number, inclusive pages and year of publication of said data. Thank you. Doc1
It is always very important to understand that many Tea party supporters are social conservatives. Social Conservatives and Tea party people are not separate and distinct movements. Tea Party will lose many supporter and a lot of influence if it makes it clear that it will not even give social conservatives the time of day.
Stopping Abortion funding is a reasonable and fiscally responsible thing to do.
Overturning Roe is a pro-constitution act and should be supported by anyone that loves the constitution.
Protecting marriage from court driven over reach costs the government nothing and rebounds to our social benefit.
Movement on these issues will keep social conservatives on board in the broad coalition that the Tea Party represents. Evangelical and Catholic Christians are increasingly being courted by left wing social justice groups that have no concern at all for fiscal responsibility. Those who do care for smaller less intrusive government would do well to make sure that the "social Justice camp" does not become more attractive to socially conservative voters.
Since this horrific Philadelphia case has made news, I've seen a tremendous number of people saying, "I'm pro-choice, but..." or "I usually stay out of the abortion debate, but...," and they go on to make arguments not just about the clearly atrocious things Gosnell did, but about the systemic problems that allowed a guy like this to operate.
In response, the politcial pro-choice arm has gone full-out "abortion absolutist"--no restrictions, full funding, no stigma, no consideration of anything but the mother and doctor period. Gallup shows that only 22% of the country agrees with that position. 23% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. That means that 45% of the country lies somewhere in a middle ground.
As with a number of other issues, the political left seems to be ceding the middle ground on abortion. Any restriction whatsoever is being proclaimed as "anti-choice," so there is a great deal of room for the GOP and/or Tea Party to step in. On any particular issue, like requiring parental notification for young minors, it stands to reason that 68% of the voters might agree.
Abortion is just not the political albatross that the left would like us to believe. Nearly 50,000 people turned out in San Francisco last weekend to March for Life--the crowd was filled with Hispanic people, women, and young people right in Pelosi & Boxer's backyard. In true-blue Massachusetts, the statehouse is one seat shy of a 50-50 split between openly pro-life and pro-choice legislators.
Legislative issues like parental notification, restricting late-term abortion of viable, healthy babies to medical emergencies only, requiring full disclosure of risks as part of informed consent, requiring independent confirmation of medical problems or gestational age--all these things are fairly common-sense issues that most people support, and they don't really violate Tea Party principles. They're about safety and full disclosure.
The left wing is fighting to exempt abortion clinics from having to meet basic medical and licensing standards, saying it is a "barrier to access." This means, like in the Gosnell case, that they are not subject to routine oversight or inspections that ensure they keep proper documentation, are sanitary, have functioning emergency equipment, fire exits, waste disposal plans. Gosnell had DECADES worth of human fetal remains in a fridge with staff lunches--when you fight basic safety regulations as a barrier, you allow lawlessness and end up with a climate where unscrupulous providers, like Gosnell, can flourish and take advantage of very vulnerable people. He was not alone--for starters, look up the sisters in CA running a chain of substandard clinics or the Thai doctor in Hyannis whose lack of basic monitoring equipment and licensed staff ended up killing a healthy girl, Laura Hope Smith, miles from the Kennedy compound.
It sure seems to me that nothing about these kinds of common sense regulations, which the far left sees as "anti-choice," would run counter to Tea Party principles and ought to appeal to a WIDE swath of voters.
One post mentions "Catholic Christians". Keep in mind that unlike the evangelicals who make up much of the social conservatives in America, Catholics are TRULY "pro-life". That includes embryos to Iraqis. If you want to show fiscal repsonsibility to true pro-lifers, you have to cut the obscene military budget as well.
What a wonderful way to destroy the focus of the Tea party. What draws the tea party together is its single minded focus on fiscal responsibility. Trying to make it a mirror image of anti abortion interest groups is irresponsible. IT IS NOT a subset of the Republican party, and it is not a subset of those opposed to abortion. Yes, a great many people in it are opposed to abortion. That is not the point.
There are a great many people out there who want the government to clean up its fiscal act, yet do not support complete restrictions on abortion. We're continually told that the conservative movement is a coalition. So why don't you, Kathryn, start trying to act like that is so, instead of trying to subvert the one group trying to keep the country from going off the fiscal cliff.
Follow
